| Pages:
1
..
3
4
5
6 |
rts551
Elite Nomad
Posts: 6700
Registered: 9-5-2003
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Barry A.
| Quote: | Originally posted by mtgoat666
| Quote: | Originally posted by Barry A.
That theory is a lefty-myth spouted over and over again by the radical Dems!!! The rich mostly produce products and services that
American's, and many others, seem to want and most buy! And consequently they grow RICH. |
barry,
actually, the laborers produce products and services. many rich just invest inherited capital that they never worked a day for, and eat caviar and
drink champagne on the beach in cabo, while the working man toils in a factory or cubicle, day dreaming of a week-long trip to a mediocre timeshare in
cabo (see how i kept this thread baja-related?)
|
Depends on how you look at it----------sorta a 'chicken or the egg' scenario. Without capitol invested by people who have it there would be no
factory, etc. for other's to work in, and earn wages, etc..... The truth is that BOTH are necessary and very important. Most wise entreprenuers (and
most ARE wise) don't want to exploit their workers as it will hurt their product, and their bottom-line long term, generally speaking. Warren Buffett
talks about his all the time. Most investors are NOT sitting around on a beach in Cabo or BOLA sipping tequila and eating fish-eggs, they are
investing their earned money accumulated over many years, and in fact I don't know any people like you mention, and I know quite a few millionairs. I
don't know any Trust-Fund babies, I don't think, depending on your definition. We accumulated our money by investing over many years with money put
aside from wages or salarys just for that purpose. It pays off big time over the years, and allows many of us to achieve the American Dream that you
mention most want to attain. In my case I gained my invested money thru Stock Mutual Funds, individual Stocks, Hedges, Commodities, some Real Estate
in great markets, and all assets used initially were earned from my Salary thru rigorous saving of a percentage of all earned income (in my case we
saved about 30% of every dime, and invested it over 45+ years allowing it to compound). Inherited money from my Mom is in a by-pass Trust (generation
skipping) which I now control since my Mom passed, but all assets go to my kids and grandkids, etc....eventually. My Mom set it up that way to avoid
death-taxes as best she could, but that only partially worked. We live off pensions, and income from our non-Trust investments (all owned by our
personal Family Trust, however). Some of my investments have lost 10's of thousands of dollars, and others have rewarded us handsomely. (that's called
"risk-taking").
Even assuming your scenario of inherited capitol, the recipients are taking almost always taking risks daily in investing their Family money in
ventures that often fail, etc... To bash them is, to me, sounding like pure jealously and envy, hating their success and luck, and wanting what they
have--------that's called GREED, I believe.
Life is good, and there are no "victims" in my Family, and we all are wage-earners and salaried people, or retired.
You have a strange take on the wealthy, and brand all with the rare bad examples you have heard of, or seen. Most don't fit that description!
Barry |
Funny you mention Warren Buffet since he advocates a minimum tax on top wage earners.... among other things.
|
|
|
MitchMan
Super Nomad
Posts: 1856
Registered: 3-9-2009
Member Is Offline
|
|
There is a big distinction between investing in corporations and simply speculating. You are truly investing in American business when you capitalize
your own corporation that is using that capital to launch a new business or to further invest in its particular business endeavor for expansion or
whatever. When you purchase stock in an IPO you are truly investing in a business as that money that you pay to the corp for its IPO will be used to
launch the business and buy productive assets.
But, it is quite a different thing when you invest in the stock market and buy stock that is sold not as an IPO but simply you buy it from some else
who already bought it from someone else who bought it from someone else who bought it from someone else, etc. That is how most of the stock is bought
every day and not from an IPO. That kind of investing is not investing in America, it is merely "speculation" and those dollars that you spent to buy
that stock did not go into capital assets to launch anything or buy a business's productive assets, it simply went into the pocket of some other
speculator.
Nothing wrong or immoral here at all. But lets call a spade a spade. Buying and holding securities are really used as a means of storing purchasing
power by those individuals with excess wealth (i.e. excess purchasing power) beyond what they needed for their own consumption more than the lofty
notion of "investing in America". For the most part, investing in securities is not much more than an exercise in sheer speculation. They are really
investing in the art of "speculation", similar to speculators who invest in rare coins, art, antiques, baseball cards or historical artifacts, etc.
A materially significant portion of current day wealthy got their wealth initially by way of inherited "seed" money and resources that enabled them to
take advantage of opportunities and/or position themselves to successfully engage in money making endeavors and careers together with "inherited"
financial connections, insights, in roads, knowledge, habits, methods and advantageous exposure. A significant portion of the wealthy admit that good
luck was also a significant factor for them. Furthermore, there can be no question that children of wealthy people get great advantages from their
family.
Many wealthy people die every year. Obviously the wealth didn't evaporate, it went to their heirs.
There is confusion about inherited wealth stats today. If you are 74 today and you inherited $300,000 when you were 24 in 1964 after your parents
provided a solid example of how to manage your money as they did and paid for your college education at a good named school and paid for your trip to
Europe, piano lessons, and golf lessons, and you started a job in your particular field of study thru the help of familial connections in the business
marketplace, you would have such a heads up on life compared to those who inherited nothing and went to a state college with no particular guidance or
example from his/her parents and no connections of any kind. The former could have purchased a very nice 5000 sq ft home with a pool in a great
neighborhood for $50,000 and buy $200,000 worth of multifamily income property; the home and the multifamily income property would be worth at least
$5 million today. If you asked that person "how much of your $5 million net worth today did you inherit, the answer would be: "only 6%, that is,
$300,000".
So, be skeptical of those who go around saying that most of today's wealthy only inherited a small portion of their current wealth. Many people
inherited not just money and seed capital but in addition, gloriously advantageous familial and social connections and exposure, insight, knowledge by
example, guidance, income property, homes, existing established businesses and much more importantly, the proper perspective on how to be a successful
custodian of wealth and fortune.
Furthermore, wealth in and of itself has a way growing like a snowball rolling down a mountain. Once you have enough wealth and income to sustain
your consumption level, the rest the income just keeps adding to your net worth. For example, for the top 1%, their wealth is skyrocketing.
A significant proportion of today's wealthy did it all their own, completely from beginning to end, that is certain, but certainly not all of the
wealthy.
[Edited on 5-7-2014 by MitchMan]
|
|
|
monoloco
Elite Nomad
Posts: 6667
Registered: 7-13-2009
Location: Pescadero BCS
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Barry A.
| Quote: | Originally posted by mtgoat666
| Quote: | Originally posted by Barry A.
That theory is a lefty-myth spouted over and over again by the radical Dems!!! The rich mostly produce products and services that
American's, and many others, seem to want and most buy! And consequently they grow RICH. |
barry,
actually, the laborers produce products and services. many rich just invest inherited capital that they never worked a day for, and eat caviar and
drink champagne on the beach in cabo, while the working man toils in a factory or cubicle, day dreaming of a week-long trip to a mediocre timeshare in
cabo (see how i kept this thread baja-related?)
|
Depends on how you look at it----------sorta a 'chicken or the egg' scenario. Without capitol invested by people who have it there would be no
factory, etc. for other's to work in, and earn wages, etc..... The truth is that BOTH are necessary and very important. Most wise entreprenuers (and
most ARE wise) don't want to exploit their workers as it will hurt their product, and their bottom-line long term, generally speaking. Warren Buffett
talks about his all the time. Most investors are NOT sitting around on a beach in Cabo or BOLA sipping tequila and eating fish-eggs, they are
investing their earned money accumulated over many years, and in fact I don't know any people like you mention, and I know quite a few millionairs. I
don't know any Trust-Fund babies, I don't think, depending on your definition. We accumulated our money by investing over many years with money put
aside from wages or salarys just for that purpose. It pays off big time over the years, and allows many of us to achieve the American Dream that you
mention most want to attain. In my case I gained my invested money thru Stock Mutual Funds, individual Stocks, Hedges, Commodities, some Real Estate
in great markets, and all assets used initially were earned from my Salary thru rigorous saving of a percentage of all earned income (in my case we
saved about 30% of every dime, and invested it over 45+ years allowing it to compound). Inherited money from my Mom is in a by-pass Trust (generation
skipping) which I now control since my Mom passed, but all assets go to my kids and grandkids, etc....eventually. My Mom set it up that way to avoid
death-taxes as best she could, but that only partially worked. We live off pensions, and income from our non-Trust investments (all owned by our
personal Family Trust, however). Some of my investments have lost 10's of thousands of dollars, and others have rewarded us handsomely. (that's called
"risk-taking").
Even assuming your scenario of inherited capitol, the recipients are taking almost always taking risks daily in investing their Family money in
ventures that often fail, etc... To bash them is, to me, sounding like pure jealously and envy, hating their success and luck, and wanting what they
have--------that's called GREED, I believe.
Life is good, and there are no "victims" in my Family, and we all are wage-earners and salaried people, or retired.
You have a strange take on the wealthy, and brand all with the rare bad examples you have heard of, or seen. Most don't fit that description!
Barry |
Barry, I believe that the error in your and other's arguments here, is clinging to the belief that we
actually live in a capitalist system. In a capitalist system, the government doesn't favor sectors and industries, it doesn't "bailout" failing
businesses, it doesn't give subsidies to businesses that could not be profitable without them, it doesn't provide artificially low interest rates that
let Wall Street banks, insurance companies, and hedge funds enrich themselves at the expense of working people who have saved their money, and it
doesn't wage war to enrich defense contractors. Many here have referred to all the "free stuff" provided by our "socialist" government, the fact of
the matter is a very large portion of that "free stuff" goes to banks, corporations, and defense contractors. That's what I referred to when I used
the word vulture, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, and BOA, by rights should no longer exist, they were insolvent, yet their bond holders, corporate
officers, and stock holders were made whole by the intervention of the US government and the Federal Reserve.
"The future ain't what it used to be"
|
|
|
LancairDriver
Super Nomad
Posts: 1601
Registered: 2-22-2008
Location: On the Road
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Quote from Monoloco;
Barry, I believe that the error in your and other's arguments here, is clinging to the belief that we actually live in a capitalist system. In a
capitalist system, the government doesn't favor sectors and industries, it doesn't "bailout" failing businesses, it doesn't give subsidies to
businesses that could not be profitable without them, it doesn't provide artificially low interest rates that let Wall Street banks, insurance
companies, and hedge funds enrich themselves at the expense of working people who have saved their money, and it doesn't wage war to enrich defense
contractors. Many here have referred to all the "free stuff" provided by our "socialist" government, the fact of the matter is a very large portion of
that "free stuff" goes to banks, corporations, and defense contractors. That's what I referred to when I used the word vulture, JP Morgan Chase,
Citigroup, and BOA, by rights should no longer exist, they were insolvent, yet their bond holders, corporate officers, and stock holders were made
whole by the intervention of the US government and the Federal Reserve. |
All very good points and true. I don't see any conservative disputing any of this.
[Edited on 5-7-2014 by LancairDriver]
|
|
|
Barry A.
Select Nomad
Posts: 10007
Registered: 11-30-2003
Location: Redding, Northern CA
Member Is Offline
Mood: optimistic
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by monoloco
| Quote: | Originally posted by Barry A.
| Quote: | Originally posted by mtgoat666
| Quote: | Originally posted by Barry A.
That theory is a lefty-myth spouted over and over again by the radical Dems!!! The rich mostly produce products and services that
American's, and many others, seem to want and most buy! And consequently they grow RICH. |
barry,
actually, the laborers produce products and services. many rich just invest inherited capital that they never worked a day for, and eat caviar and
drink champagne on the beach in cabo, while the working man toils in a factory or cubicle, day dreaming of a week-long trip to a mediocre timeshare in
cabo (see how i kept this thread baja-related?)
|
Depends on how you look at it----------sorta a 'chicken or the egg' scenario. Without capitol invested by people who have it there would be no
factory, etc. for other's to work in, and earn wages, etc..... The truth is that BOTH are necessary and very important. Most wise entreprenuers (and
most ARE wise) don't want to exploit their workers as it will hurt their product, and their bottom-line long term, generally speaking. Warren Buffett
talks about his all the time. Most investors are NOT sitting around on a beach in Cabo or BOLA sipping tequila and eating fish-eggs, they are
investing their earned money accumulated over many years, and in fact I don't know any people like you mention, and I know quite a few millionairs. I
don't know any Trust-Fund babies, I don't think, depending on your definition. We accumulated our money by investing over many years with money put
aside from wages or salarys just for that purpose. It pays off big time over the years, and allows many of us to achieve the American Dream that you
mention most want to attain. In my case I gained my invested money thru Stock Mutual Funds, individual Stocks, Hedges, Commodities, some Real Estate
in great markets, and all assets used initially were earned from my Salary thru rigorous saving of a percentage of all earned income (in my case we
saved about 30% of every dime, and invested it over 45+ years allowing it to compound). Inherited money from my Mom is in a by-pass Trust (generation
skipping) which I now control since my Mom passed, but all assets go to my kids and grandkids, etc....eventually. My Mom set it up that way to avoid
death-taxes as best she could, but that only partially worked. We live off pensions, and income from our non-Trust investments (all owned by our
personal Family Trust, however). Some of my investments have lost 10's of thousands of dollars, and others have rewarded us handsomely. (that's called
"risk-taking").
Even assuming your scenario of inherited capitol, the recipients are taking almost always taking risks daily in investing their Family money in
ventures that often fail, etc... To bash them is, to me, sounding like pure jealously and envy, hating their success and luck, and wanting what they
have--------that's called GREED, I believe.
Life is good, and there are no "victims" in my Family, and we all are wage-earners and salaried people, or retired.
You have a strange take on the wealthy, and brand all with the rare bad examples you have heard of, or seen. Most don't fit that description!
Barry |
Barry, I believe that the error in your and other's arguments here, is clinging to the belief that we
actually live in a capitalist system. In a capitalist system, the government doesn't favor sectors and industries, it doesn't "bailout" failing
businesses, it doesn't give subsidies to businesses that could not be profitable without them, it doesn't provide artificially low interest rates that
let Wall Street banks, insurance companies, and hedge funds enrich themselves at the expense of working people who have saved their money, and it
doesn't wage war to enrich defense contractors. Many here have referred to all the "free stuff" provided by our "socialist" government, the fact of
the matter is a very large portion of that "free stuff" goes to banks, corporations, and defense contractors. That's what I referred to when I used
the word vulture, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, and BOA, by rights should no longer exist, they were insolvent, yet their bond holders, corporate
officers, and stock holders were made whole by the intervention of the US government and the Federal Reserve. |
I agree with all you say here with the exception of "banks, insurance companies, and Hedge funds enriching themselves at the expense of working
folks"-------just HOW do they do that?
I would STOP all the subsidies if I was in charge, as you would. The 'bailouts' were nutty, for sure.
Barry
|
|
|
MrBillM
Platinum Nomad
Posts: 21656
Registered: 8-20-2003
Location: Out and About
Member Is Offline
Mood: It's a Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah Day
|
|
When in Rome .................
The thought that comes to mind whenever someone (inevitably) brings up Dem Ol Romans is ..................
IF we can last THAT LONG, then we've got a few hundred years left to Reign.
Sounds good to me.
|
|
|
monoloco
Elite Nomad
Posts: 6667
Registered: 7-13-2009
Location: Pescadero BCS
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Barry A.
I agree with all you say here with the exception of "banks, insurance companies, and Hedge funds enriching themselves at the expense of working
folks"-------just HOW do they do that?
Barry |
Think of all the people who worked all their lives and saved their money, like mi suegras, who, in
their 80's are now faced with the choice of receiving less than 1% on their savings or investing in a rigged casino stock market that they are not
nearly sophisticated enough to effectively navigate. I know that you are bullish on the stock market, and a significant portion of my wealth is due to
investing in it also, but the vast majority of Americans will never have enough of an understanding of how the market works to avoid being fleeced.
"The future ain't what it used to be"
|
|
|
Barry A.
Select Nomad
Posts: 10007
Registered: 11-30-2003
Location: Redding, Northern CA
Member Is Offline
Mood: optimistic
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by monoloco
| Quote: | Originally posted by Barry A.
I agree with all you say here with the exception of "banks, insurance companies, and Hedge funds enriching themselves at the expense of working
folks"-------just HOW do they do that?
Barry |
Think of all the people who worked all their lives and saved their money, like mi suegras, who, in
their 80's are now faced with the choice of receiving less than 1% on their savings or investing in a rigged casino stock market that they are not
nearly sophisticated enough to effectively navigate. I know that you are bullish on the stock market, and a significant portion of my wealth is due to
investing in it also, but the vast majority of Americans will never have enough of an understanding of how the market works to avoid being fleeced.
|
If they spent even a few months listening to Susie Orman's show on CNBC (I think that is the station) then they would learn almost all they need to
know----------95% of what that crazy-lady says is spot on, and invaluable advice.
I gave up making decisions on about 2/3rds of my invested portfolio years ago, and now I pay trusted advisors that I am very familiar with to take on
that task. (in my case Ken Fisher Investments). Heck, put it all in Birkshire Hathaway-B (Warren Buffett's) and you will be just fine----I have lots
with Warren's stuff. The other 1/3rd is in ROTH IRA'S invested in super Mutual Fund Families like Vanguard, Fidelity, and T. Rowe Price. You can get
independent newsletters that concentrate on each of those Families for about 100 to $250 a year, which is peanuts when you take their advice
seriously, and follow it. Over many years I have averaged annualized returns of from 9% to 14% (and occasionally more). If you then only remove 3%
of each portfolio annually, they will last forever and even grow, keeping up with inflation, and then some.
There is a learning-curve, like with everything, but it can be done and millions do it. No, or little "trading" no matter what, don't act on emotion,
and you will be fine if history is any clue.
But above all, don't get involved or take advice from any of the nuts bombarding you with their ads touting gains of 15% or more on TV or the
internet, or by mail, with a very few exceptions (that's where your experience comes in handy-----few of them are worth your time). If it sounds
simply wonderful, it probably is a scam. I NEVER pay any attention to the dozens of unsolicited investment flyers I get each week, and on the
NET----NEVER!!!.
(Now each person reading this please remit $25 to my Pay-Pal account ) (-:
Barry
|
|
|
monoloco
Elite Nomad
Posts: 6667
Registered: 7-13-2009
Location: Pescadero BCS
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Barry A.
| Quote: | Originally posted by monoloco
| Quote: | Originally posted by Barry A.
I agree with all you say here with the exception of "banks, insurance companies, and Hedge funds enriching themselves at the expense of working
folks"-------just HOW do they do that?
Barry |
Think of all the people who worked all their lives and saved their money, like mi suegras, who, in
their 80's are now faced with the choice of receiving less than 1% on their savings or investing in a rigged casino stock market that they are not
nearly sophisticated enough to effectively navigate. I know that you are bullish on the stock market, and a significant portion of my wealth is due to
investing in it also, but the vast majority of Americans will never have enough of an understanding of how the market works to avoid being fleeced.
|
If they spent even a few months listening to Susie Orman's show on CNBC (I think that is the station) then they would learn almost all they need to
know----------95% of what that crazy-lady says is spot on, and invaluable advice.
I gave up making decisions on about 2/3rds of my invested portfolio years ago, and now I pay trusted advisors that I am very familiar with to take on
that task. (in my case Ken Fisher Investments). Heck, put it all in Birkshire Hathaway-B (Warren Buffett's) and you will be just fine----I have lots
with Warren's stuff. The other 1/3rd is in ROTH IRA'S invested in super Mutual Fund Families like Vanguard, Fidelity, and T. Rowe Price. You can get
independent newsletters that concentrate on each of those Families for about 100 to $250 a year, which is peanuts when you take their advice
seriously, and follow it. Over many years I have averaged annualized returns of from 9% to 14% (and occasionally more). If you then only remove 3%
of each portfolio annually, they will last forever and even grow, keeping up with inflation, and then some.
There is a learning-curve, like with everything, but it can be done and millions do it. No, or little "trading" no matter what, don't act on emotion,
and you will be fine if history is any clue.
But above all, don't get involved or take advice from any of the nuts bombarding you with their ads touting gains of 15% or more on TV or the
internet, or by mail, with a very few exceptions (that's where your experience comes in handy-----few of them are worth your time). If it sounds
simply wonderful, it probably is a scam. I NEVER pay any attention to the dozens of unsolicited investment flyers I get each week, and on the
NET----NEVER!!!.
(Now each person reading this please remit $25 to my Pay-Pal account ) (-:
Barry |
Barry, Do you really think it's wise for people in their 80's who have never touched a computer or
had any investment experience, should be putting money in the stock market?
"The future ain't what it used to be"
|
|
|
Barry A.
Select Nomad
Posts: 10007
Registered: 11-30-2003
Location: Redding, Northern CA
Member Is Offline
Mood: optimistic
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by MitchMan
There is a big distinction between investing in corporations and simply speculating. You are truly investing in American business when you capitalize
your own corporation that is using that capital to launch a new business or to further invest in its particular business endeavor for expansion or
whatever. When you purchase stock in an IPO you are truly investing in a business as that money that you pay to the corp for its IPO will be used to
launch the business and buy productive assets.
But, it is quite a different thing when you invest in the stock market and buy stock that is sold not as an IPO but simply you buy it from some else
who already bought it from someone else who bought it from someone else who bought it from someone else, etc. That is how most of the stock is bought
every day and not from an IPO. That kind of investing is not investing in America, it is merely "speculation" and those dollars that you spent to buy
that stock did not go into capital assets to launch anything or buy a business's productive assets, it simply went into the pocket of some other
speculator.
Nothing wrong or immoral here at all. But lets call a spade a spade. Buying and holding securities are really used as a means of storing purchasing
power by those individuals with excess wealth (i.e. excess purchasing power) beyond what they needed for their own consumption more than the lofty
notion of "investing in America". For the most part, investing in securities is not much more than an exercise in sheer speculation. They are really
investing in the art of "speculation", similar to speculators who invest in rare coins, art, antiques, baseball cards or historical artifacts, etc.
A materially significant portion of current day wealthy got their wealth initially by way of inherited "seed" money and resources that enabled them to
take advantage of opportunities and/or position themselves to successfully engage in money making endeavors and careers together with "inherited"
financial connections, insights, in roads, knowledge, habits, methods and advantageous exposure. A significant portion of the wealthy admit that good
luck was also a significant factor for them. Furthermore, there can be no question that children of wealthy people get great advantages from their
family.
Many wealthy people die every year. Obviously the wealth didn't evaporate, it went to their heirs.
There is confusion about inherited wealth stats today. If you are 74 today and you inherited $300,000 when you were 24 in 1964 after your parents
provided a solid example of how to manage your money as they did and paid for your college education at a good named school and paid for your trip to
Europe, piano lessons, and golf lessons, and you started a job in your particular field of study thru the help of familial connections in the business
marketplace, you would have such a heads up on life compared to those who inherited nothing and went to a state college with no particular guidance or
example from his/her parents and no connections of any kind. The former could have purchased a very nice 5000 sq ft home with a pool in a great
neighborhood for $50,000 and buy $200,000 worth of multifamily income property; the home and the multifamily income property would be worth at least
$5 million today. If you asked that person "how much of your $5 million net worth today did you inherit, the answer would be: "only 6%, that is,
$300,000".
So, be skeptical of those who go around saying that most of today's wealthy only inherited a small portion of their current wealth. Many people
inherited not just money and seed capital but in addition, gloriously advantageous familial and social connections and exposure, insight, knowledge by
example, guidance, income property, homes, existing established businesses and much more importantly, the proper perspective on how to be a successful
custodian of wealth and fortune.
Furthermore, wealth in and of itself has a way growing like a snowball rolling down a mountain. Once you have enough wealth and income to sustain
your consumption level, the rest the income just keeps adding to your net worth. For example, for the top 1%, their wealth is skyrocketing.
A significant proportion of today's wealthy did it all their own, completely from beginning to end, that is certain, but certainly not all of the
wealthy.
[Edited on 5-7-2014 by MitchMan] |
I just saw this post, Mitch, for the first time.
I think all that you have said here is spot-on, very well stated, and your 'inherited wealth' scenario is a very reasonable example of what may, and
often does, happen.
What puzzles me is that this scenario apparently bothers you, and you see something wrong with it?!?!? I hope I am wrong. I see nothing wrong at
all with your hypothetical scenario actually happening--------and marvel at how much this actually happens in this Country of ours. I actually
applaud it, and it's many variations as examples of how Families build wealth and opportunity, allowing Family members to duplicate it over and over
again, and then provide enormous amounts of charity to foundations that provide opportunity to many others less fortunate. The more successful
members of my extended Family give literally millions to Foundations and Colleges, etc. of their choice with expressly those intentions of providing
opportunity to as many as possible, knowing that they have been extremely fortunate to live in a Country with such incredible opportunities for
success and wealth. By far the MOST successful member of my extended Family was an only-child from a Family headed by a Sanitation Worker for the
City of San Diego, and he inherited only a fully-paid-off very modest house in Chula Vista. From there he, and College buddies (San Diego State),
built up several multi-million dollar businesses, eventually all of them becoming Venture Capitalists, which he remains one as of today, at age 80..
If this isn't something to applaud, then I truly am living in a parallel universe, as somebody suggested earlier.
So far, nobody in my extended Family "inherited" much wealth, certainly not the "$300K" in your scenario, but that will soon change. Hopefully this
"seed" money now at hand will produce more prosperity for all involved, and that looks to be on track as NOBODY in my extended Family has EVER had any
major problems, and all are building wealth slowly on their own---even my age 20'ish grandkids. It's hard for me to criticize a Country or a system
that provided us with these opportunities. I truly believe that ANYBODY with average intelligence can accomplish great things if the simply apply
themselves and learn how to do it.
Thank you for that great post---------it shows insight and knowledge, and that you have done your homework and kept your eyes open.
It take's a very special talent & special intelligence to actually "start" a business, and many simply don't have those attributes, as near as I
can tell. I know I don't. But I sure applaud those that do-----it's what makes our system truly work, albeit with some unintended consequences from
time to time, and yes I envy those that do, but have never felt any jealousy---- Just thank God that we have them as they provide the 'progress' that
we almost all desire and utilize!!!
I am only able to tag along behind them thru investing in their endeavors and success thru the Stock Market---------and yes, from your perspective
that is "speculation", but I submit, a very educated-speculation.
Barry
|
|
|
MrBillM
Platinum Nomad
Posts: 21656
Registered: 8-20-2003
Location: Out and About
Member Is Offline
Mood: It's a Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah Day
|
|
Only in America ?
Could so many whose financial position would make them wealthy in most of the world consider themselves to be downtrodden and poverty-stricken.
|
|
|
Barry A.
Select Nomad
Posts: 10007
Registered: 11-30-2003
Location: Redding, Northern CA
Member Is Offline
Mood: optimistic
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by monoloco
| Quote: | Originally posted by Barry A.
| Quote: | Originally posted by monoloco
| Quote: | Originally posted by Barry A.
I agree with all you say here with the exception of "banks, insurance companies, and Hedge funds enriching themselves at the expense of working
folks"-------just HOW do they do that?
Barry |
Think of all the people who worked all their lives and saved their money, like mi suegras, who, in
their 80's are now faced with the choice of receiving less than 1% on their savings or investing in a rigged casino stock market that they are not
nearly sophisticated enough to effectively navigate. I know that you are bullish on the stock market, and a significant portion of my wealth is due to
investing in it also, but the vast majority of Americans will never have enough of an understanding of how the market works to avoid being fleeced.
|
If they spent even a few months listening to Susie Orman's show on CNBC (I think that is the station) then they would learn almost all they need to
know----------95% of what that crazy-lady says is spot on, and invaluable advice.
I gave up making decisions on about 2/3rds of my invested portfolio years ago, and now I pay trusted advisors that I am very familiar with to take on
that task. (in my case Ken Fisher Investments). Heck, put it all in Birkshire Hathaway-B (Warren Buffett's) and you will be just fine----I have lots
with Warren's stuff. The other 1/3rd is in ROTH IRA'S invested in super Mutual Fund Families like Vanguard, Fidelity, and T. Rowe Price. You can get
independent newsletters that concentrate on each of those Families for about 100 to $250 a year, which is peanuts when you take their advice
seriously, and follow it. Over many years I have averaged annualized returns of from 9% to 14% (and occasionally more). If you then only remove 3%
of each portfolio annually, they will last forever and even grow, keeping up with inflation, and then some.
There is a learning-curve, like with everything, but it can be done and millions do it. No, or little "trading" no matter what, don't act on emotion,
and you will be fine if history is any clue.
But above all, don't get involved or take advice from any of the nuts bombarding you with their ads touting gains of 15% or more on TV or the
internet, or by mail, with a very few exceptions (that's where your experience comes in handy-----few of them are worth your time). If it sounds
simply wonderful, it probably is a scam. I NEVER pay any attention to the dozens of unsolicited investment flyers I get each week, and on the
NET----NEVER!!!.
(Now each person reading this please remit $25 to my Pay-Pal account ) (-:
Barry |
Barry, Do you really think it's wise for people in their 80's who have never touched a computer or
had any investment experience, should be putting money in the stock market? |
I am no "advisor", but ABSOLUTELY (if they intend to leave any money to their heirs), as long as they are willing to pay attention, and if not, then
put their money into good Mutual Funds (Vanguard, Fidelity, or T. Rowe Price), or a trusted investment firm (do extensive homework). Because of
pervasive law-suits, the professional advisors are WAY to conservative, with a few exceptions like Ken Fisher who advocates total Stock Market
investments (no bonds). I have seldom owned any bonds other than Zero Coupon Bonds in a declining interest rate environment----bonds are way to risky
and mysterious for me!
If I was just starting out in my '80's, I would stick with good Mutual Funds and/or a good Investment Manager. ANYTHING is better than earning only
"1%". Check out the stats on VANGUARD SELECTED VALUE.
Barry
|
|
|
Barry A.
Select Nomad
Posts: 10007
Registered: 11-30-2003
Location: Redding, Northern CA
Member Is Offline
Mood: optimistic
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by MrBillM
ONLY IN AMERICA------
Could so many whose financial position would make them wealthy in most of the world consider themselves to be downtrodden and poverty-stricken.
|
100% agree----------this has ALWAYS amazed me!!!
Barry
[Edited on 5-7-2014 by Barry A.]
|
|
|
TMW
Select Nomad
Posts: 10659
Registered: 9-1-2003
Location: Bakersfield, CA
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | | Quote: | | Barry, Do you really think it's wise for people in their 80's who have never touched a computer or had any
investment experience, should be putting money in the stock market? |
I am no "advisor", but ABSOLUTELY (if they intend to leave any money to their heirs), as long as they are willing to pay attention, and if not, then
put their money into good Mutual Funds (Vanguard, Fidelity, or T. Rowe Price), or a trusted investment firm (do extensive homework). Because of
pervasive law-suits, the professional advisors are WAY to conservative, with a few exceptions like Ken Fisher who advocates total Stock Market
investments (no bonds). I have seldom owned any bonds other than Zero Coupon Bonds in a declining interest rate environment----bonds are way to risky
and mysterious for me!
If I was just starting out in my '80's, I would stick with good Mutual Funds and/or a good Investment Manager. ANYTHING is better than earning only
"1%". Check out the stats on VANGUARD SELECTED VALUE.
Barry |
Well said Barry.
|
|
|
wessongroup
Platinum Nomad
Posts: 21152
Registered: 8-9-2009
Location: Mission Viejo
Member Is Offline
Mood: Suicide Hot line ... please hold
|
|
Some good "stuff" on the only game in town for us working stiffs ... such that "it" is
Suppose there are more than a few, that started with nothing .. we did .. and it took a life time of working, saving and investing to reach retirement
without debt and something in the bank for an additional safety net ........
Certainly don't like to see my fellow Americans suffering without jobs and little hope of getting one in the short or long term ... and we willing to
pay taxes to help them out ... Know they sure in hell weren't trying to end up this way
Additionally ... their prospects for "investing" to pull it off ... are remote, at best
Difficult times ahead for this next generation ... as the wagon they have been hitched to ... will be getting harder and harder to pull
The class I'm referring to, the unemployed .... left over from this last financial meltdown ... with no place to go
"The Bureau of Labor Statistics announced that the current unemployment rate is lower than it has been in six years: 6.3%. While that’s good news, you
may want to resist the urge to fully celebrate because the figure only tells part of the story. Here are some other critical numbers that help to
paint a more complete picture:
1. 806,000 People Dropped Out of the Labor Force in April
It’s no secret why the job rate hit a low – nearly a million Americans gave up on looking for work altogether last month alone. In its official
statistic, the Bureau of Labor Statistics does not include people who aren’t looking for work as “unemployed,” meaning that millions of people who
have been discouraged by repeated rejections and a poor economy are conveniently left out of the equation entirely.
After last month’s massive drop in job-seekers, that means 92 million Americans are out of the labor force in total. While that figure includes
retired individuals, that still leaves far too many working-age adults who have given up hope on securing employment.
2. 344,000 New People Filed for Unemployment Benefits Last Week
It’s interesting that in the same month where the government is heralding record unemployment rates that the number of people applying for
unemployment benefits has also been increasingly high. For three consecutive weeks, the number of new applicants has risen, jumping from 320,000 to
344,000 just last week.
Though some economists have dismissed the job as a “seasonal shift,” the numbers could also indicate that people who were hoping to find work on their
own for some time are finally realizing that they need government assistance to get by since their job prospects are not looking good. That’s not good
news because…
3. 2 Million People Were Forced Off Unemployment Benefits
As of the beginning of March, 2 million still actively seeking for jobs were no longer able to receive unemployment benefits. Thanks to Congress
opting not to renew long-term unemployment benefits this past December, people who were depending on this money to get by abruptly found themselves
out of luck.
Looking forward, the prospect for helping these does not look all that good. While the Senate (including a handful of Republicans) has agreed to give
more financial support to the long-term unemployed, the House’s Republican stronghold continues to dismiss the idea of re-extending these benefits.
Considering the average person who loses his or her job goes a full 35 weeks before finding work again, the existing benefits do not even cover that
gap.
4. 1/3 of Breast Cancer Survivors Remain Unemployed Years Later
Although this statistic pertains to a small subset of the U.S. population, it does demonstrate that Americans facing health crises have a difficult
time reentering the workforce. According to a study by the University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center, one-third of women who were working
prior to their diagnosis are still unemployed.
Those who underwent chemotherapy were especially likely to still find themselves jobless years later. Evidently, as “inspiring” as people consider
breast cancer survivors, employers don’t view them as viable candidates. For the record, more than half of the unemployed women were interested in
returning to a job, with most actively looking for employment.
5. 64% of Long-Term Unemployed Still No Better Off More Than a Year Later
The longer someone is unemployed, the worse his or her chances of ever landing a job become. Long-term unemployment figures paint a frightening
picture of people who have seemingly been disregarded by hirers permanently.
Researchers looked at job-seekers who had been unemployed for at least six month, and then checked up on them again 15 months later. For most, the
year had not been kind. 30% of these people were still unemployed and looking for work, while another 34% weren’t working or looking for work anymore.
Of the 36% who were now considered “employed,” only about 1/3 were in full-time, stable positions."
|
|
|
Bob53
Senior Nomad
Posts: 661
Registered: 2-24-2014
Location: Fallbrook, CA & Bahia de los Angeles
Member Is Offline
|
|
Wait a minute. Why am I not listed? Oh yeah, I'm not Mexican.
|
|
|
Barry A.
Select Nomad
Posts: 10007
Registered: 11-30-2003
Location: Redding, Northern CA
Member Is Offline
Mood: optimistic
|
|
In response to Wesson above----------:
As previously stated, Redding, CA (actually Shasta County) has an official unemployment rate of "17%" when last computed. I see "help wanted" signs
on many businesses in town. My business friends who are looking for employees to fill vacancies are mostly stymied as few apply, and those that do
simply are not qualified due to lack of education, drug problems, poor attitudes, and a work-history that is less than encouraging. (notice that ALL
of those "problems" were brought on by irresponsible behavior by individuals) .
I feel sad and compassionate for the unemployed who truly want work but have disabilities, but that sadness fades quickly for the general unemployed
individuals who I see, and hear about from my business friends, at least as it pertains to Redding.
Who, in their right minds, would STOP looking for work if they wanted to work??? and do irresponsible things that they have to know reduces their
chances of being hired? I believe I know the answer, and it is not encouraging.
Barry
|
|
|
monoloco
Elite Nomad
Posts: 6667
Registered: 7-13-2009
Location: Pescadero BCS
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Barry A.
| Quote: | Originally posted by monoloco
| Quote: | Originally posted by Barry A.
| Quote: | Originally posted by monoloco
| Quote: | Originally posted by Barry A.
I agree with all you say here with the exception of "banks, insurance companies, and Hedge funds enriching themselves at the expense of working
folks"-------just HOW do they do that?
Barry |
Think of all the people who worked all their lives and saved their money, like mi suegras, who, in
their 80's are now faced with the choice of receiving less than 1% on their savings or investing in a rigged casino stock market that they are not
nearly sophisticated enough to effectively navigate. I know that you are bullish on the stock market, and a significant portion of my wealth is due to
investing in it also, but the vast majority of Americans will never have enough of an understanding of how the market works to avoid being fleeced.
|
If they spent even a few months listening to Susie Orman's show on CNBC (I think that is the station) then they would learn almost all they need to
know----------95% of what that crazy-lady says is spot on, and invaluable advice.
I gave up making decisions on about 2/3rds of my invested portfolio years ago, and now I pay trusted advisors that I am very familiar with to take on
that task. (in my case Ken Fisher Investments). Heck, put it all in Birkshire Hathaway-B (Warren Buffett's) and you will be just fine----I have lots
with Warren's stuff. The other 1/3rd is in ROTH IRA'S invested in super Mutual Fund Families like Vanguard, Fidelity, and T. Rowe Price. You can get
independent newsletters that concentrate on each of those Families for about 100 to $250 a year, which is peanuts when you take their advice
seriously, and follow it. Over many years I have averaged annualized returns of from 9% to 14% (and occasionally more). If you then only remove 3%
of each portfolio annually, they will last forever and even grow, keeping up with inflation, and then some.
There is a learning-curve, like with everything, but it can be done and millions do it. No, or little "trading" no matter what, don't act on emotion,
and you will be fine if history is any clue.
But above all, don't get involved or take advice from any of the nuts bombarding you with their ads touting gains of 15% or more on TV or the
internet, or by mail, with a very few exceptions (that's where your experience comes in handy-----few of them are worth your time). If it sounds
simply wonderful, it probably is a scam. I NEVER pay any attention to the dozens of unsolicited investment flyers I get each week, and on the
NET----NEVER!!!.
(Now each person reading this please remit $25 to my Pay-Pal account ) (-:
Barry |
Barry, Do you really think it's wise for people in their 80's who have never touched a computer or
had any investment experience, should be putting money in the stock market? |
I am no "advisor", but ABSOLUTELY (if they intend to leave any money to their heirs), as long as they are willing to pay attention, and if not, then
put their money into good Mutual Funds (Vanguard, Fidelity, or T. Rowe Price), or a trusted investment firm (do extensive homework). Because of
pervasive law-suits, the professional advisors are WAY to conservative, with a few exceptions like Ken Fisher who advocates total Stock Market
investments (no bonds). I have seldom owned any bonds other than Zero Coupon Bonds in a declining interest rate environment----bonds are way to risky
and mysterious for me!
If I was just starting out in my '80's, I would stick with good Mutual Funds and/or a good Investment Manager. ANYTHING is better than earning only
"1%". Check out the stats on VANGUARD SELECTED VALUE.
Barry |
Sorry Barry, but investing in the stock market for middle class folks is only advisable if they have
a 10+ year timeline, any investment advisor who would recommend that someone in their 80's start investing in stocks and mutual funds, would be guilty
of malpractice. Imagine if there was another 2008 meltdown, they would be forced to live out the rest of their lives in poverty.
"The future ain't what it used to be"
|
|
|
Barry A.
Select Nomad
Posts: 10007
Registered: 11-30-2003
Location: Redding, Northern CA
Member Is Offline
Mood: optimistic
|
|
MonoLoco----------then they must accept the consequences of their inaction and their decision, and except "1%" returns, I suppose.
I am 76, and my investment "time line" is always stated as "30 years plus" since we intend to leave our portfolios to my kids, and at 3% take each
year I will not be drawing down my Stock investments, historically-----just the opposite as they continue to increase in value even with my 3%
withdrawal rate. Even a 5% annual withdrawal rate is acceptable, to some----but no more than that. I state a "30 +year time horizon" because I don't
want my Advisor over-reacting to our age, and being way too conservative. He knows our actual ages, but this lets him off the hook legally if things
go south.
I was assuming from the parameters you laid out that the subject-people had their nest-egg in bonds, and were getting only "1%", and I assumed that by
age 80 they had no debt-----we certainly don't.
We had lost roughly 53% of our entire invested portfolio between early 2008 to April of 2009. My advisor and I tinkered with the investments,
changing perhaps 5% of our portfolio to a new strategy, and by Nov. of 2010 we had regained all of the 53% loss and were back in the black. We have
gone thru 3 or 4 similar situations over some 45 + years, and all worked out about the same.
With 2 people in their '80's each getting SS and no debt I can't really see why "poverty" would be on their horizon-------belt-tightening for sure,
but "poverty"???? There are no guarantees, of course. You (they) makes your decisions, and I would hope live with the consequences regardless. Risk
is ALWAYS part of the game.
Between my pension, and my wife's SS, we net about $2300 a month, and that sure pays all the bills. Investment income is gravy!!! and also pays for
Insurance protection, and we have a LOT of insurance protection to protect the kids from a possible disaster.
I will stick with my advice based on what you have told me.
Barry
|
|
|
Pompano
Elite Nomad
Posts: 8194
Registered: 11-14-2004
Location: Bay of Conception and Up North
Member Is Offline
Mood: Optimistic
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by DENNIS
The top 10 are:
1.Carlos Slim, 72 billion dollars
2.Germán Larrea, mining, 14.7 billion dollars.
3.Alberto Bailleres, mining, 12.4 billion dollars.
4.Ricardo Salinas Pliego, Grupo Salinas (TV Azteca, Elektra, Banco Azteca) 8.3 billion dollars.
5.Eva Gonda de Rivera, Coca Cola-Femsa shareholder, 6.4 billion dollars.
6.María Asunción Arumburuzabala, former president of Grupo Modelo, 5.2 billion dollars.
7.Antonio del Valle Ruiz, Mexichem, Pochteca y Banco Ve por Más, 5.0 billion dollars.
8.Jerónimo Arango, whose family founded Aurrerá, 4.2 billion dollars.
9.Emilio Azcárraga Jean, Televisa, 2.6 billion dollars.
10.David Peñaloza Sandoval, construction firm Triturados Basálticos (Tribasa), 2.1 billion dollars.
http://geo-mexico.com/?p=11323 |
Dennis...a reminder that...YOU'VE BEEN HIJACKED! 
I do what the voices in my tackle box tell me.
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
..
3
4
5
6 |
|
![[*]](images/xmbforum/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
